Execution sale after judgment-debtor's death without impleading legal representatives is void for want of jurisdiction.

An execution sale conducted after the death of the sole judgment-debtor is void if the decree-holder fails to proceed against the legal representative under Section 50 CPC and omits notice under Order 21 Rule 22. The notice is treated as part of the court's jurisdiction to proceed where no representative is already on record, so its absence is not a mere irregularity. Prior attachment does not cure the defect or dispense with impleading the legal representative, and the purchaser's bona fides cannot validate a sale made without jurisdiction. The sale was therefore liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an execution sale held after the death of the sole judgment-debtor, without bringing the legal representatives on record and without notice under Order 21, Rule 22, is void; and whether prior attachment or the purchaser's bona fides can validate such sale.

Analysis: The death of the sole judgment-debtor before completion of execution required the decree-holder to proceed under Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the legal representative. The notice contemplated by Order 21, Rule 22 is not a mere formality where the estate has no representative on record; it is part of the Court's jurisdiction to proceed against the legal representative. Attachment before death does not vest title in the Court or dispense with the statutory requirement to implead the representative. The decisions treating such omission as a mere irregularity were not accepted, and the Court held that the purchaser's bona fides cannot cure a want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The sale was void for want of jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.

---